Copy of Snippet "TS 1.06 Exam"

QuestionAnswerMarks
1(a)It does agree that people will perform better if their working hours fit their natural rhythms [{formtext: name=1aa; default=1; cols=2}], but it links those rhythms to age-group rather than chronotype/choice [{formtext: name=1ab; default=1; cols=2}].
No mark for judgment. 
{=`1aa` + `1ab`}/2
1(b)2 marks each for up to two developed valid answers 1 mark each for up to two undeveloped or marginal answers/answers expressed as criticisms of the data instead of alternative explanations

2-mark answers:
[{formtext: name=1b1}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may happen to have been of greater ability (than those in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b2}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may happen to have been healthier people (than those in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b3}] The students (in years 1 and 2) may have been more naturally motivated (than those in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b4}] The teaching (in years 1 and 2) may have been better (than that in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b5}] The national average for absence may have been higher (in years 1 and 2) (than in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b6}] The national standards for attainment may have been set a little lower (in years 1 and 2) (than in year 0). 
[{formtext: name=1b7}] The students / teachers (in years 1 and 2) may have responded positively to knowing they were in an experiment (the ‘Hawthorne effect’). 
[{formtext: name=1b8}] The sanctions for absence/rewards for attendance may have increased (in years 1 and 20 (by comparison with year 0). 
1-mark answers: 
[{formtext: name=1b9}] The improvement in academic results may have been due to the reduced number of absences. 
[{formtext: name=1b10}] The students in the different years of the experiment were not the same people.  
{=`1b1` + `1b2` + `1b3` + `1b4` + `1b5` + `1b6` + `1b7` + `1b8` + `1b9` + `1b10`}/4
1(c)2 marks for a correct answer with accurate explanation
1 mark for a correct answer with vague, incomplete or generic explanation
0 marks for correct answer without explanation
0 marks for incorrect answer with or without explanation
2-mark answer (3 ticks)
[{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c1}{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument.
[{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c2}{endformtoggle}] It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy. 
[{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c3}{endformtoggle}]It does not include a (persuasive) conclusion / The word “therefore” in the third sentence indicates an explanation, not a conclusion.
1-mark answers (2 ticks)
[{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c4}{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument, because it does not include a persuasive conclusion. 
[{formtoggle: default=no; name=1c5}{endformtoggle}] Source D is not an argument. It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy 
0-mark answer (1 tick or 0 ticks) 
[{formmenu: ; ✓; default=Χ}] Source D is not an argument, because it does not include two contrasting opinions. It consists of a factual report with an explanation of why a school has decided on a particular policy.  
{formtext}/2
1(d)1 mark each for up to three of the following: 
[{formtext: name=1d1; cols=2}] The experiment involved only 16–18 year-olds / is irrelevant to younger ages.
[{formtext: name=1d2; cols=2}] The experiment involved only one school; there may be features of that school that make it unrepresentative of all schools.
[{formtext: name=1d3; cols=2}] There is no evidence (allow ‘no statistics’) to support the school’s evaluation/decision.
[{formtext: name=1d4; cols=2}] There is no indication of the criteria which persuaded the school to judge that the experiment had succeeded.
[{formtext: name=1d5; cols=2}] The experiment involved much later working hours and it is not clear whether the results would support a less radical proposal.
[{formtext: name=1d6; cols=2}] There was no control group to enable a proper comparison to be made. 
[{formtext: name=1d7; cols=2}] It is unclear what the experimental period was – if only 1 week for example then the results would not be very reliable.
[{formtext: name=1d8; cols=2}] Source D does not assess the impact on the staff / parents / students’ lives outside school / state resources etc.  
{=`1d1` + `1d2` + `1d3` + `1d4` + `1d5` + `1d6` + `1d7` + `1d8`}/3
1(e)[{formtext: name=1e1; cols=2}] Source E is of moderate credibility (neither incredible nor very credible)
[{formtext: name=1e2; cols=2}] As a teacher, the author has some expertise and ability to see 
[{formtext: name=1e3; cols=2}] but he/she does not have current first-hand expertise of being a teenager 
[{formtext: name=1e4; cols=2}] The author has an explicit vested interest (accept bias) to oppose a change in school hours, which reduces his/her reliability 
[{formtext: name=1e5; cols=2}] The suggestion that students’ preference for later working hours is due to their use of mobile phones is inconsistent with Source B 
[{formtext: name=1e6; cols=2}] but it is plausible that this is a partially true explanation 
[{formtext: name=1e7; cols=2}] The comment about harmful consequences on teachers’ family life will be plausible if some schools keep to traditional times 
[{formtext: name=1e8; cols=2}] The comment about expectations of employers is not entirely plausible, because tolerance of early start times improves with age 
{=`1e1` + `1e2` + `1e3` + `1e4` + `1e5` + `1e6` + `1e7` + `1e8`}/3